Lovato v. New Mexico

Background

A man indicted for murder in the Territorial Court of New Mexico pleaded not guilty in May 1910. After he demurred to the indictment the next year, the court overruled the demurrer, impaneled and sworn a jury, and began calling witnesses. The court then dismissed that jury so the accused could be arraigned again and plead not guilty, after which the same jury was sworn and the trial proceeded. The defendant was convicted of manslaughter and appealed, arguing he had been put in jeopardy twice and denied a jury trial and due process. The case later reached the State Supreme Court after New Mexico’s admission to the Union and then came here.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court reviewed whether the dismissal and re-arraignment made the defendant suffer double jeopardy or a loss of jury or due-process rights. The Court found no such harm. It treated the episode as a procedural irregularity made while protecting the defendant’s rights, not as a second trial. The Court noted the jury had been legally impaneled initially and that using the same jury after arraignment did not amount to being tried twice. The opinion cited earlier cases recognizing courts’ discretion to correct procedural errors without forcing a new trial.

Real world impact

The ruling means that a temporary dismissal of a jury to correct arraignment or plea procedures will not automatically void a trial or create a double-jeopardy violation when the same properly impaneled jury then tries the case. Convictions under similar facts may stand despite such procedural irregularities. The Court did not decide whether the double-jeopardy argument had been raised too late in the trial, focusing instead on the absence of actual prejudice.